joigus

"Quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation" is a wording that strikes me as word salad. And we're not having the discussion again on how the Plack scale itself is a consequence of gravitation.

Agreed. A bunch of photons could. A simple picture of black-hole formation is actually modelled with a number of photons converging towards a point in space with a distribution of momenta that's ingoing and spherically symmetric. At some point I think I understood the OP as implying it was pairs of photons that gave rise to the gravitons though. The argument also surfaced that at the level of spin it also fits: (1+1 = 2 ). Maybe you've dug deeper into that. Anyway, as I said, invoking gravity to explain gravity is so logically flawed it's my head that's spinning.

Both concepts are related. But the CMBR is a bulk, while the surface of last scattering corresponds to the last photons of that CMBR we can see (and therefore the oldest and hottest at the cosmic time we see them) and are about to get lost forever to our sighting.

Exactly.

And I yours. Whenever you have a G you have gravity. Otherwise, it would have been named otherwise. "Collapse" just means gravitational collapse. When you introduce G and c, it signals GR, when you further have h-bar your dimensional analysis signals quantisation of the horizon areas. I think it's safe to assume we still don't totally understand why the combination of the three leads us to an almost unfathomably-small distance (and therefore area, and volume), an almost unfathomably small time, and a chunk of energy that's approximately the relativistic energy of an amoeba. I have a feeling that might be significantly related to some amount of minimal information that does something. I'm not sure of what that is or does.

The Planck threshold is defined by G, besides c and h bar. Please, do study elementary physics.

I don't think it's arrogant. You want to explain gravity (the quantum version, that is; gravitons). In order to do that you need photons to "collapse". I'm assuming you mean "gravitational collapse". If you mean quantum mechanical collapse, say so. But then quantum mechanical so-called "collapse" is not well understood and/or presently disfavoured as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you mean "collapse" in other sense that's completely new, the new ambiguous concept deserves an explanation/introduction. Therefore, the idea is ill-conceived because you're appealing to gravity to explain gravity. Your basic assumption rests on a monumental begging-the-question fallacy, it seems to me. If not, please clarify. When the idea is ill-conceived from the start, you don't need to look any deeper. Other times you do. Some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century were known to have dismissed silly ideas very quickly. Heisenberg himself generated some of the craziest, silliest ones after WWII. It seems he had 'lost it' by then. Other members are giving you more specific criticism. I suggest you examine that.

Yes, I think some ambiguity between CMBR and the surface of last scattering is slipping in here, probably. With gravitational waves we can even see further out, because everything is transparent to those. So one thing is the background of whatever species are out there, and a different thing is the farthest out we can se those things...

Exactly. This is a pattern. At least at the point we are now in the development of language-based AI. It will almost never say: "Your question is flawed". Many questions and instructions one can think of are flawed. "Move five meters north of the North Pole " is flawed. IMO, gravity (collapse is a mechanism of gravity) explaining gravity (gravitons are the source of gravity) through photons must be flawed. It must be. I don't have to think about the details.

Metaphors won't get you where you want to go. Do you realise you're trying to use gravity to explain quantum gravity via photons? That's what your LLM of choice is suggesting you to do. Doesn't that sound ill-conceived? Remember the most useful tool for a theoretical physicist is actually the wastepaper basket.

Oh, I'm absolutely convinced it's got the potential to be for us what the asteroid was for the dinosaurs. Some furry scuttling things will take over. It's time to keep a low profile perhaps, find a cozy niche of some kind.

A message from God? You've been quite involved in religious topics lately. Think about it. To positive effect in the eyes of the Lord no doubt. 😉 Congratulations on your kid's graduation, btw. A proud day for any father.

Well... Yes and no.

But my point didn't hit the target then. Gluons don't have a mass of their own. They're fundamentally massless. They acquire mass because they do a dance of three colours (and their anti-colours) that we call chromodynamics. They exchange other gluons with each other. In doing so, they "dress" themselves with self-energy, like electrons do in QED. Photons don't do that. Photons do not attract or repel each other. They go past each other like there were nothing there. Gluons do wha they do because they are sources of chromodynamic field, besides being messengers. Photons are pure messengers, without sourcing any field. When a gluon "sees" another gluon, it says "huh, there's another coloured thing out there" and spits a further gluon. The other gluon follows suit. A photon simply does not "see" another photon. That's why gluons get dressed with (dynamical) mass even though they do not have mass at all. I know it's a lot to take. You have to study some quantum field theory first. Before that, you must study quantum mechanics, to see where the "quantum" comes from. In order to do that, you must study "mechanics", to see... And so on. My advice is: Trust in the time-honoured system of studying from the ground up, and don't put too much stock in what AI tells you. It's sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. And in order to tell one from the other you need a magic word: criterion. You have to develop criterion. I know no better way than what everybody else has done from time immemorial.

Indeed.

For gauge bosons to acquire mass (like gluons) the gauge theory must be non Abelian. If that's the case, we should have diferent colours of gravitons, resulting in things like confinement and assymptotic freedom. That doesn't sound like gravity.

Hello and welcome. What is your level of maths?

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not have mass. Interaction carriers having mass would violate gauge symmetry. Gravitons, provided they exist, should be sourced by anything having local energy density, not particularly hyper-dense sources. Gravitons, provided they exist, should not undergo any appreciable clustering themselves. You should be able to produce a convincing reasoning without people having to click any links, as per forums rules. Welcome and good luck.

🫥

Again, a theory of everything is a name that became popular in the '90s, if I remember correctly, and does not mean a theory of "every thing". Nobody would be silly enough to engage in such an endeavour. A so-called TOE sets out to explain parameters of the SM (standard model). A theory of every thing (every single thing that is out there) is just an mirage stemming from a basic misunderstanding of what those words mean.

Science is not about rebuttals. It's rather about an optimum fit to the facts that's conceptually and mathematically economical. If it turns out to be predictive, so much the better! What bias? Maximal entanglement is the perfect paragon of non-bias. Every direction is the same, every particle is the same, everything that can be measured is on an equal basis. Every \( \boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{n} \) projection produces the same odds. It has no particular spatial-direction or particle-identity feature. It's the paragon of featurelessness, of non-bias. Informational curvature. Can you define the term? Entanglement a geometric feature? I don't know of such geometry.

As that never happens for professional physicists who understand quantum mechanics, I'm going to guess the reason is just something along the lines of "I'm gonna find a reason that satisfies me" --like @swansont said. I don't care about that "every thing that can happen will happen" nonsense, the non-argument goes. But that's what QM says: Every single event that could happen has an amplitude that affects what will happen. Astronomical observations are not in the domain of a so-called theory of everything. TOE is about masses and angles and coupling constants. Not about why Mercury is so different from the Earth.

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

By the way, your AI engine of choice got this wrong (among other things): The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is neither classical nor quantum. How do you think Planck proved the right graph for the spectrum of the black body? Exactly. Maxwell-Boltzmann. It is true that Maxwell-Boltzmann cannot give you the entangled state. I didn't say it does. I implied it must be consistent with it. Exchange of identical particles doesn't give you an energy difference. MB demands that statistical weights be the same. It's the principles of quantum mechanics that complete the rationale.

Exactly. Be minimalist. Establish a useful formalism.